Case: 23-1316 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 08/07/2023
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
HARRY J. CONNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2023-1316
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
in No. 1:21-cv-02057-RTH, Judge Ryan T. Holte.
______________________
Decided: August 7, 2023
______________________
HARRY JAMES CONNER, Memphis, TN, pro se.
PATRICK ANGULO, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil
Division, United States Department of Justice, Washing-
ton, DC, for defendant-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY.
______________________
Before PROST, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
Case: 23-1316 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 08/07/2023
2 CONNER v. US
PER CURIAM.
Harry Conner appeals a decision from the United
States Court of Federal Claims, dismissing his complaint
for failure to state a claim and also dismissing his motions
for reconsideration and to amend the findings of fact and
conclusions of law. 1 Because Mr. Conner’s complaint was
barred by the relevant statute of limitations, and because
the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying
Mr. Conner’s motions for reconsideration and to amend the
findings of fact and conclusions of law, we affirm.
I
Mr. Conner is the listed beneficiary of a Federal
Employee Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy held by his
deceased mother, who had worked for the United States
Postal Service. After his mother’s death in February 2010,
Mr. Conner secured the proceeds of his mother’s policy,
totaling $14,000 plus $96 in interest. However, Mr. Conner
alleged that his mother elected to purchase another
$10,000 in life insurance coverage in 1968 and in 1981, and
he disputed the amount he was entitled to with the Office
of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM confirmed the
amount to Mr. Conner by letter. Mr. Conner then sought
reconsideration, and OPM again confirmed by letter that
Mr. Conner had received the right amount. Mr. Conner
claimed that both letters he received from OPM confirming
1 Mr. Conner’s notice of appeal could be construed as
only appealing the trial court’s denial of his motions for re-
consideration and to amend the findings of fact. But his
brief also challenges the dismissal of his complaint. Be-
cause Mr. Conner is pro se, we will assume that he intends
to appeal both the dismissal of his case and the other two
motions.
Case: 23-1316 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 08/07/2023
CONNER v. US 3
the amount of his mother’s policy are “fake,” “forged,” and
“fabricated.” S.A. 8. 2
Mr. Conner then initiated two lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the District of Tennessee,
claiming that he did not receive the correct payout. Both
suits were dismissed for failure to state a claim, and both
dismissals were affirmed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Mr. Conner then filed suit in
the Court of Federal Claims, asserting various breach of
contract claims as well as a claim that he did not receive
the proper payout from his mother’s FEGLI policy in
violation of the Back Pay Act. The trial court dismissed
Mr. Conner’s breach of contract claims, finding that his
mother’s FEGLI policy did not place him in privity of
contract with the government. The trial court also found
that, even if he were in privity of contract with the
government, Mr. Conner’s breach of contract claims were
time-barred. The trial court rejected Mr. Conner’s claim
under the Back Pay Act, noting that it was not a money-
mandating statute and thus the trial court did not have
subject-matter jurisdiction. And finally, the trial court
found that Mr. Conner’s claims were barred under the
doctrine of res judicata, as they were all raised in the two
earlier lawsuits filed in the Western District of Tennessee.
Mr. Conner then filed a motion to amend the findings of
fact and conclusions of law under Court of Federal Claims
Rule 52(b), and a motion for reconsideration under Court
of Federal Claims Rule 59(a). After noting that
Mr. Conner’s arguments in the motions were all previously
presented, the trial court denied both motions. Mr. Conner
now appeals.
2 S.A. refers to the supplemental appendix attached
to the government’s informal brief.
Case: 23-1316 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 08/07/2023
4 CONNER v. US
II
We review dismissals for lack of jurisdiction de novo.
Tex. Peanut Farmers v. United States,
409 F.3d 1370, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2005). While pro se pleadings are held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, pro se litigants still bear the burden of
establishing jurisdiction over their claims. Reynolds v.
Army & Air Force Exch. Serv.,
846 F.2d 746, 748 (Fed. Cir.
1988).
We review a denial of a motion for reconsideration
under an abuse of discretion standard. See Mass. Bay
Transp. Auth. v. United States,
254 F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed.
Cir. 2001). And we also review a denial of a motion to
amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law under an
abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Weatherchem Corp.
v. J.L. Clark, Inc.,
163 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
When deciding whether the trial court abused its
discretion, we consider whether the “court’s decision was
based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly
erroneous factual findings,” or whether the trial court
“committed a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus., Inc. v.
Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., Inc.,
840 F.2d 1565,
1567–72 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (internal citations omitted).
III
We first consider whether the trial court properly
dismissed Mr. Conner’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction,
and then consider whether the trial court abused its
discretion by denying Mr. Conner’s motion for
reconsideration and motion to amend the findings of fact
and conclusions of law.
A
The trial court found that it lacked jurisdiction over
Mr. Conner’s claims for several reasons, including that
those claims were time-barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. “Every claim of which the United States Court
Case: 23-1316 Document: 20 Page: 5 Filed: 08/07/2023
CONNER v. US 5
of Federal Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless
the petition thereon is filed within six years after such
claim first accrues.”
28 U.S.C. § 2501. We have held that a
claim accrues “when all the events have occurred which fix
the liability of the Government and entitle the claimant to
institute an action.” Goodrich v. United States,
434 F.3d
1329, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Here, the trial court correctly found that Mr. Conner’s
claims accrued the day he received the FEGLI benefit
payments, which was on June 25, 2010. But Mr. Conner
did not file his complaint in the Court of Federal Claims
until over ten years later, on October 18, 2021. We are
unpersuaded by Mr. Conner’s argument that the trial court
“failed to consider any facts or circumstances” regarding
the timing of the case, because the trial court did explain
why his claims fell outside the relevant statute of
limitations. See Appellant’s Br. at 1. Thus, even taking all
of Mr. Conner’s allegations as true, the trial court correctly
found that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over
Mr. Conner’s claims.
B
Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying
Mr. Conner’s motions for reconsideration and to amend the
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court
explained that Mr. Conner’s arguments in both motions
“were all previously presented,” and did not change the fact
that it did not have jurisdiction over Mr. Conner’s claims.
S.A. 4. Mr. Conner’s brief on appeal merely reiterates that
the trial court did not consider all the facts in the record.
His brief also does not explain how his claims were not
time-barred such that the trial court would have
jurisdiction over those claims. We therefore find that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying both of
Mr. Conner’s motions.
Case: 23-1316 Document: 20 Page: 6 Filed: 08/07/2023
6 CONNER v. US
IV
We have considered the rest of Mr. Conner’s arguments
and find them unpersuasive. Thus, we affirm the Court of
Federal Claim’s determination that it did not have subject-
matter jurisdiction over Mr. Conner’s claims.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
